Do you really not understand how insurance works? Hint: most of the people who pay $75/yr don't actually have their homes catch on fire! Why would you think $75/yr doesn't cover it unless you happen to have statistics on the percentage of homes that typically catch fire every year?

You obviously do see, because the very next sentence you explain it.

Until people stop paying the $75.

~400k fires happen in the US per year fwiw

That is one possible solution, yes. In fact, it is the solution in place throughout most of America, if I'm not mistaken.

Claiming that the goods to be saved are "clearly valueless" is wrong. You appear not to have read that to which you are responding. I'm not sure what to do other than repeat myself, so: If people systematically underestimate the likelihood of a fire, then they will not spend as much to protect their goods from fire as they should/would if they knew the true likelihood of a fire.

I am aware that the socialization of fire departments is not necessary. That much is/should be clear to all. The question is whether socialization is best.

It still costs the same amount to fight the fire if the person pays 75$ a year or it's someone who gets hit with a 500-1000$ charge.

Well, I think there are good reasons to believe that the family expected the fire department to put out the fire while the house burned, even if they could/should/would not have expected the same a day earlier.

Goofy gonna goofy

how many volunteer FDs have you heard of that went to someone's burning house and just stood around and watched?

Questions regarding legitimacy are definitionally decided by popular opinion. Whether a thing is legitimate depends only and exclusively on the beliefs of the public.

And then you hit them with the 500-1000$ charge if needed. Now compare that with a person who has been living in this area 2 years and paid the 150$ for 2 years coverage, you actually make more money off the person charged a grand assuming they have lived in their home less than 14 years and have never paid the 75$.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or anything I've said, but if so then you should know that this is nothing like anything I've said.

This.

Hadn't heard this. If true then I agree that is outrageous.

I heard they didn't pay any city taxes because they lived in the boonies.

I like post 173 but it's too long to quote.

So homes don't burn down in ACland cause VFDs are the nizzles? How do those get funded, btw? (honest question, I don't know how those work, but I'm assuming it's not people who walk around fighting fires for free in their spare time...cause that's not a "market", that's "charity")

My point regardless was your cute attempt at asserting correlation into causation. You've yet to show why refusing to pay for fire protection until their house caught on fire makes these people victims of the evil state, aside from pointing out some laws that exist about 2,000 miles from where this actually happened. But hey, pvn gonna pvn.

That's a good point. We probably still need more information to make a final judgment here.

I would want to know these things:

1) Were any of the homeowner's taxes ever used to benefit the fire department? If it's true that the property taxes were used to benefit the FD, then the homeowner has a legitimate bitch.

2) Does it matter if the homeowner paid the $75 fee in previous years and then forgot to pay just this year? Does that make a difference in whether he should get fire service or not? Personally, I think the guy never paid the $75 fee in years past, but there would be records to prove me right or wrong.

3) Why can't these rural homes be taxed for FD protection in the first place? I'm forced to pay those taxes like everyone else in my neighborhood, but then I know if there is a fire it will be extinguished without any discussion. It is worth the peace of mind.

4) How much does it cost per call (on average) to put out a fire in that particular area? I have a fire station just a mile away and I live in a fairly populated area. But when the homes are really spread out, like in this particular case, then it must be more expensive to put out each fire.

Apparently money is being donated to this guy now, and he'll get everything replaced in the end. Just one more example of someone being rewarded for bad behavior? Possibly. Spend your money on whatever you want, don't worry about the future, and if you have a problem then others will bail you out.

Great philosophy, and it's working so well for our country right now.

Why, in your mind, is it more expensive, gas and traveling time aside, to put out a fire when homes are more spread out?

Seems like there's less chance for the fire to spread, therefore less probability of higher costs ensuing.


I think I mentioned earlier how in ACland, his home would still burn down for refusing to pay the privately owned FD. But I'm fairly certain I was called an idiot for that belief.

AFAIK, no. That's the key. He lived outside the city limits, and therefore didn't pay "normally" for his fire service, that's why he had to pay the $75 fee. Citizens inside the city limits are covered by their taxes.

If I was in charge of the fire service and the guy had paid 5 years in a row and didn't this year, I would put out the fire no questions asked and then work out some sort of payment + penalty plan.

Because he doesn't live in the city.

I'm sure this will come out in the days to come. A little looking around shows figures from 2.5K - 7K per fire, but of course everywhere will be different.

Just another example of private charity filling the gap imo

Yeah we just need a rich uncle to bail us out!

Because you can't put gas and traveling time aside, for starters.

If the homes are farther apart, then less homes can be serviced per day. And firefighting equipment costs the same whether it is used less often or more often.

I look at it this way. Let's say all the FD's were consolidated into one giant FD, located in the geographical center of the continental 48 (somewhere in Missouri, if I remember correctly). A fire breaks out in New York, and a fire truck has to go road tripping. It is reasonable to assume that the average cost of fighting a fire would go WAY up. Even here in Denver there are many fire stations, rather than just one in the center of the city. Why? Because it's more efficient (and cheaper) to fight fires that are close to the fire stations.

Problem is, in rural areas the FD's are much more spread out. There isn't enough tax money available there to have one every few blocks, so it takes longer to fight each individual fire. Hence: higher total costs.

Well there's also the problem that the longer that it takes to respond, the more out of control the fire will be. Obviously the faster you can respond the easier you can contain it. The longer it takes to respond, the longer it will be until it's under control.

You have some valid points. If more than 1 battalion (whatever a team of firefighters is called) is needed for a fire, it will cost more money to pay them as they work/wait for backup/reinforcements/etc.

Though, I don't know how many single-home fires require more than 1 unit of firefighters.

As for traveling time, as we've already covered, the firefighters are getting paid regardless of doing work or not, the only question would be if increased pay due to (being in harm's way, forgot the term used earlier) kicks into effect the moment the alarm goes off in the station.

That leaves the gas difference. And if I can't ignore that, you can't ignore

that this isn't true. Items needing replaced sooner aside, refilling oxygen tanks, foam, etc., does have a cost associated with it, and a squad that gets called to fewer fires is going to have a smaller cost in this area.

Whether that cost is offset by the price of having to drive further is beyond me.

WTF are you talking about? The "outcome" wasn't "house burns down" it was "house burns down because fire department that got there in time to do something just sat there instead".

That's part of a market, and that's pretty much exactly how they worked (and they DID work) before governments started professional city firefighting brigades.

Wow, that's an impressive display of... something. I'm not even sure what it is, it's so bad. If I was asserting what you're claiming, how is that correlation->causation?

The claim isn't that he's a victim of the evil state BECAUSE he failed to pay his protection money. Try again.

The fire department didn't sit there, they carried out their job of making sure their paying customer's house next door didn't catch on fire. And your original post:

clearly implies you think government handling of firefighting is the reason why this dude's home burned down with nobody trying to save it. Nevermind other factors involved like "they had the option to pay for service from the fire department and chose not to."

So your claim, judging by the above post, is that the existence of a government-run FD in the nearby city causes volunteers to not feel like fighting fires and forming a VFD? I mean, help me out, I could keep guessing and you saying "try again" if I'm wrong or maybe you could clear this up for me and just state what your claim is, if that wouldn't be too against the grain of how you typically post.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I heard about this happening. Trust me. In fact, let's say it happens all the time.

.